[Quantum_Wizard]

THrag2K wrote:

Reducing emissions would probably help, more so if we focus on the real baddie of global warming (water vapor) in conjunction with it's relatively minor accomplice (C02).

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. You can read more from this post at RealClimate. Focusing of water vapor would make no sense at all. In the post they give an example where they in a GCM simulation remove all the water vapor in the atmosphere. The result was that the water vapor levels returned to normal in a matter months.

[THrag2K]

Quote:

If I go camping, and I start a fire, then find out there is a fire advisory, the forest is dry and can catch fire at any moment, I can a) put out the fire... its not a good idea to have an open fire in such a dry forest, or b) wait until the fire escapes the fire pit. Why would I wait, just because I want to enjoy one more smore... that's just stupid! Put the fire out now before something seriously wrong happens!

The fire advisory and the current climate models are two different beasts. The fire advisory has probably thousands of recorded incidents wherein "holy crap, these conditions will lead us to a forest fire". Repeated "testing" with results makes me more confident in their warning, especially since their warning is immediate. If I don't put out that fire now, it could have irreversible consequences almost right away.

Not so with global warming, but you seem to keep missing that ideal. If we take another 2, 5, even 10 years it wouldn't cause irreversible damage.

Now, let's break down these facts bit by bit.

Quote:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

Given, but this isn't really saying much by itself.

Quote:

* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

And how did they come up with this very likely (>90%)? Did they actually come up with multiple consistent models and determine it was true for >90% of them? Or did they just pull a stat from nowhere? Remember the statement: Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Quote:

* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.

Except for that likely (which may mean >66%, but it doesn't quite fit in that sentence) there's no numbers or quantitative statements. Usually not a good thing for a scientist to do.

Quote:

* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

So, there's a less than 5% chance we don't even have an impact? Seeing as we've already agreed there is an impact, this would be a moot point to bother with.

Quote:

* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in).

I like this one. Mainly because they don't include any of the qualifiers that you included below. This shows, at least to me, that they aren't confident enough in their model to put a qualifier on this other than "could", which I assume means >0%. This shows that they have doubt as to what the consequences will be, which I approve of. However, that they STILL threw out a stat I don't approve of.

Quote:

o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.

We've already admitted the world is getting warmer, even if we weren't here. Part of global warming, natural or not, is "more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfalls". Nothing is really being said with this stat, as it could be >99% (just in case the trend mystically reverses itself I don't want to say that could NEVER happen).

Quote:

o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

These are also natural results of global warming, albeit I don't know what constitutes "extreme" high tides.

Note: For both of the preceding statements, they don't say how much of an increase, even relatively speaking, but just that there will be one. Thusly, if the trend is largely natural and these things do increase it will be sported as proof of the statements, even if it isn't proof of the underlying meaning.

Quote:

* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

Ah, CO2 sticks around as natural dissipation is really slow. I can back that, but this is just saying "If we're right, then the effects will be around for a while". It still hinges on that if.

Quote:

* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years

Hey, look, a fact. And an obvious one at that.

Quote:

note the lack of mention of water vapour, which while also a green house gas is not identified anywhere in the IPCC reports as either rising due to anthropogenic causes, or accelerating in concentration that alarm climate scientists]

Though not rising GLOBALLY, it is rising in specific locales. This contributes to the warming in those areas, which then dissipates heat further to surrounding areas as well. It's not listed because it's not a global effect.

So there we have it. I see a lot of words that, in the end, say nothing. Well, except for the few obvious conclusions.

Quote:

As the above states with at least a 90% likelihood, we're already in this.

There's a 90% chance we're in something. But you keep assuming it's a disaster, when even the above "data" (I say this because I assume it's drawn from some form of data, but isn't data itself) doesn't support this assumption.

Quote:

Those points you mentioned are not a cohesive plan... just like the Conservatives "climate strategy".

They're additions to a plan. Take the current one, but add those to it. It takes the plan, makes it better. I'm all for getting the corporations to clean up their act, but as is it wouldn't do anything as they can simply pass on the entire cost to the consumer. Emissions would lower in this case, but not nearly as much as if there were a real incentive for the companies to come up or at least implement better technology. My addition would give them this incentive as they would have to eat the cost themselves.

Quote:

They are a series of stop-gap measures meant to address short term goals and silence the critics.

Odd, because I thought that was the point. You have someone who's critical of a plan, they bring up concerns (consumers are the ones who will pay). A measure is introduced to "stop-gap" that (companies can't pass on the cost of the tax to the consumer) and the concerns are addressed and the person is no longer critical. The plan still goes on as before, except for that one small development that will make it better.

Quote:

Again, the only solution to this is a fundamental shift in behaviour.

Here's the thing. They won't get elected if their plan is to create a fundamental shift in behaviour. Thus, they're plan will never be instituted. However, if they take the plan to address current corporate practices, they COULD get elected and could implement a plan that could do something, as opposed to not implement a plan that would do more. I'd rather take all of less, then none of more if you catch my drift.

Quote:

If the Conservatives came out with their own plan like this, but varied the way that the shifts in taxes occurred, then I would take a look at both plans and asses according to which I felt would be best for myself and society. But they haven't.

Hence why I'm proposing additions to the LIBERAL plan that would be electable. That way SOMETHING is put into effect.

Quote:

As for "passing the buck" yes, I've said that will likely occur to a degree (in that companies will pass down some increased costs), however it is a short term pain caused by a fundamental shift in our economic system. Once the new normal is set, people will hardly notice.

To a degree? Some places it will be fully passed on, I can guarantee that.

Quote:

So the fundamental problem we are attempting to address is not in driving down prices (that can easily be achieved using monetary policy in a deflationary monetary strategy) but in driving down costs (our use of resources, and all those other inputs).

Here's the thing though. If prices are passed on directly to the consumer, and in some places it will be, then if the consumer responds by using less then the output and input would decrease proportionately. Thus, the efficiency would remain the same at best.

Quote:

There is no such thing as environmental efficiency.

You know what I mean, even if you refuse to say so.

Quote:

There is reducing our energy density

Which would result in a proportionate decrease in both input and output at best, resulting in, at best, a net of zero change.

Quote:

there is efficient use of resources

This is the only thing that you listed that would have a real effect on the economy efficiency. Funny how that works...when you use the word efficient is translates to higher efficiency.

Quote:

there is reducing waste and negative externalities

This is more a benefit to the environment than to the economy. If there were no tax on said negative externalities (and there likely won't unless the libs change the plan enough to make it electable) then the only cost associated with them is the cost of transporting the waste. On the whole scale this is a small cost, as most of the waste transports itself. It would improve the economy, but only slightly.

Quote:

First of all, as I mentioned in my previous post, if we had complied with Kyoto, then we would today have a reasonable, rational argument for getting developing nations like India and China to reduce their emissions in the next round of the Protovol.

Actually, we wouldn't have a rational argument for the next hundred years or so. They're rebuttal for why they shouldn't is because we had a free ride since the Industrial Revolution. That was a long time ago, and if they really wanted to they could keep trotting out that excuse for a long time. If we had signed that would just mean our argument would become rational in 2244 instead of 2264. I gotta say, if the problem is as big as claimed, then by then humanity is hooped anyway. Hell, humanity could be hooped by then for many various reasons.

Quote:

But just because we've missed one deadline doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say thats all! We have to start some time.

Who said give up? I certainly didn't. I'm not saying trash the current plan, I'm saying adjust it to make it better. The only way we can be a leader in this is if we can actually institute a plan that will work. That won't happen with the current plan as it won't be instituted as is, plain and simple.

As for the lecture about "the future", get off your high horse. Everyone knows the proposed costs to the future, so spewing that out isn't going to change a thing. In fact, all your doing is either "preaching to the choir" or "pissing everyone else off". That everyone else either doesn't care about the future, or are just more concerned with the present. Also, that everyone else is the majority, so you're going to have to get to them in a better way.

Quote:

Well, I apologize, but you can understand why I would assume. Your argument and methodology greatly resembles that of the Conservative party, albeit in a much more intelligent and thought out fashion.

There's a lot of atheists out there who personally believe the main message of many religions (be good to others, etc) but arrived there in a more thought out passage. This does not make them religious, yes/no?

Quote:

However, again, to appreciate this plan is to look beyond the short term inconvenience that it will cause and to look at the more long term goals that such a shift in our tax and economic system will create.

The short term inconvenience is what will make the plan not instituted as it will result in the people proposing it not being elected.

Also, I agree with your "let's reduce our costs" deal, but mainly because I'm a cheap bastard. However, a rising cost to me won't force me to reduce further, it'll just make me more upset that I'm suddenly having to pay more.

THrag2K wrote:

Then why are you trotting out the support plan if you know it won't effectively solve the problem it was meant to fix?

Quote:

I know it will solve the problems it is meant to fix

Then why did you say:

Quote:

I'm sure the support will never be enough.

That doesn't solve, it just assuages the problem.

Quote:

my point was that the other two parties will inevitably say it won't

Unfortunately you made that point after the above statement. Though the point is true, it still doesn't retract the above statement.

Quote:

but invariably unexpected costs will occur.

Sure, unexpected costs will occur, but that's why they're unexpected. However, if you make sure you have an efficient model, or the most available to you, to begin with (which the gun registry and this current proposal don't necessarily have) then the total cost will be lower as you've minimized the expected costs.

And again, I said nothing about scrapping, but about adjusting. As for your "would you shut down these programs?", I wouldn't shut them down as we've already instituted them and have to deal with those mistakes as best we can. However, I'd like to avoid further mistakes by at least making sure the current plan has minimized the expected costs.

Quote:

The short term issues that we've identified are that costs will go up (which in and of it self is self resolving in that employment contracts, when they come up for renegotiation, will invariably include wage hikes because the aggregate inflation of prices would warrant it) and that there maybe a slight shift in socio-economic levels of taxation because of the proposal (again, is that so bad? So the rich won't be able to afford one more ivory back scratcher).

Sure, the rich won't be able to afford one more ivory backscratcher. But as wages go up to balance costs, costs will then go up to balance wages. Though "money is meaningless" to an economist, to joe blow (and his manager) it means a lot. This is how economic depressions are born, by rapid inflation of wages and prices which leads to a devaluation of the dollar. Could the current plan lead to that? I'd say that, if left unchecked with the current "solutions" then it's possible.

Quote:

Even the inflation in prices can be resolved over time with deflationary monetary policy, although the consequences of that would be more devastating to our economy, a classic case of the cure being more painful than the problem.

Looks like you got to that, kudos.

Quote:

To metaphorically address your criticism, this would be tantamount wanting to know if someone has pee'd in the lake before you; at most, if someone defecated in the water.

Granted to the sensationalization, but I was thinking in terms of small amounts of toxic waste. Not immediately harmful, but if you keep doing it it will be bad. I just failed to communicate the level of said amounts, but that's a result of unintentional lack of communication as opposed to intentional over communication (ala your 12-lane highway).


Defecation and urination in the water is a non-concern in a lake as those substances are going to be present regardless due to wildlife. Unless we're talking a sewage line draining into the lake, but I'd put that at the same level of small amounts of toxic waste. That's why I used something that was of a real concern other than a complete non-concern.

Quote:

I had meant to mean that your thinking in isolation rather than in the bigger picture was unfair to those that are affected by your actions and choices, because it's not just you that deals with the consequences, your neighbours, us here in Ontario, people in France, Tuvalu, as well as your children, their children, their children, etc.

*Sigh* You still don't get it. I am thinking the big picture in terms of this country. I don't want the prices increasing nation wide, plain and simple. You call me a bigot because this price increase would affect Alberta more, but I use the example of Alberta to show that it will affect us more disproportionately. As to whether it will affect the rest of the world, I'll direct you to all my previous arguments about how much effect we have on global warming and the uncertainty of the cost on the rest of the world.

Quote:

Well, not just to you but to all of Alberta, any (and I hesitate to use this word) pain that this plan generates will be felt equally across the country as a whole.

This is incorrect sir. It won't be felt equally. You yourself stated that Ontario has a quasi-free market in terms of energy and heat. Thusly, in order to maintain competitiveness companies won't pass on the entire cost to consumers (unless they have a grand conspiracy of price fixing, but that in and of itself is another problem).

However, here in Alberta, we have 1 provider of energy, and 1 provider of heat. More than that, they own and control all the lines of provisions as well. Thus, they can pass on the price in it's entirety with no fear of losses to competitors.

Thusly, our prices will rise moreso than Ontario. I'm not saying Ontario is out to "steal our money" but rather that the consequences of the current plan, without some form of regulation that prevents companies from passing on the entire cost to the consumer, is greater in Alberta as a result of the current system.

Quote:

plan aim to trim a little of the top and give it to the bottom.

And there's the mistaken assumption. The current plan is to have tax come to the government and some of it to be passed back down to the bottom. However, that tax doesn't care where it comes from, but rather that it does. I'm saying the plan needs something that ensures the top (which is primarily the corporations in charge of the heat/power) pays for it instead of passing it down carte blanche to the middle and lower. As it stands the plan only truly taxes the middle and lower, and gives some of that back to the lower, at least in Alberta. In Ontario, due to it being more of a free-market setting, this probably won't happen as much as companies will be willing to eat portions of the cost themselves to ensure they don't lose consumers to their competition.

Quote:

So the argument that the majority of Albertans (individually) will be worse off is wrong!

In the terms that the Conservatives are proposing, I would agree. However, in the more realistic (or rather, I'd hope so) terms that I'm describing, I still staunchly disagree.

Quote:

So we then go to the second regionally based argument, that being that since Alberta's industry uses more energy

I won't bother with this one, as it's not even my argument. I'd say strawman, but I think you just got on a little rant here so I'll let it be.

In conclusion, you continuously mistake me saying "we need to adjust the plan" as "scrap it", and that is really breaking down any argument. Further, though your arguments are strong, they address the concerns of a Kool-Aid drinking Conservative. I already told you that I'm not one of them, and told you my concerns (better outlined in this post) which don't use the same ideas for concern as the Conservatives. Thus, all your arguments against the Conservative position are misdirected and don't address my concerns.

As for the Global Warming stuff, I propose we both stop wasting our breath (or, in this case, neuro-electric impulses) trying to convince each other of anything. It's clear you're firmly in the "it's happening and it's bad" camp, and I'm in the "it's happening, but is it bad?" camp. We've seen the same data and drew different conclusions from it. Any further quoting of the data would be a practice in futility, and a waste of our resources (something I know you're against, ).

[Zipperfish]

Quote:

Quote:

* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years

Hey, look, a fact. And an obvious one at that.

So you readily admit that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activity. But then the obvious question is: if adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not increasing heat, why not?

[THrag2K]

Zipperfish wrote:

So you readily admit that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activity. But then the obvious question is: if adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not increasing heat, why not?

It's not a question of whether there's an increase CO2 or heat, but as to HOW much it does this and whether or not it's disastrous. I'm surprised you've missed things I've repeatedly said twice now. This is a habit you should try to curb, .

[commonsense]

THrag2K wrote:

The fire advisory and the current climate models are two different beasts. The fire advisory has probably thousands of recorded incidents wherein "holy crap, these conditions will lead us to a forest fire". Repeated "testing" with results makes me more confident in their warning, especially since their warning is immediate. If I don't put out that fire now, it could have irreversible consequences almost right away.

Not so with global warming, but you seem to keep missing that ideal. If we take another 2, 5, even 10 years it wouldn't cause irreversible damage.

Credible climate scientists have been raising the alarm since the 1970's about global warming. We've waited nearly 40 years. How much longer do we wait?

THrag2K wrote:

Now, let's break down these facts bit by bit.

Okay, first off... this isn't something you can "break down". This is the consensus of hundreds, if not thousands, of climate scientists. The culmination of tens of thousands of climate models, tested and peer reviewed for accuracy. The fact that you have the gaul to argue against them (unless you're some renowned climate scientists plugging away on a forum like this for shits and giggles) means that all of your arguments are based on personal, emotional, bigoted reasons.

HOWEVER...

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

Given, but this isn't really saying much by itself.

It's saying plenty! There are still a lot of people, like George W. Bush and Stephen Harper who are on record as denying that global warming even exists. They trot out these half-baked "climate strategies" in order to quell public discourse that you unequivocally be against their positions. Its a way of smoke screening the issue.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

And how did they come up with this very likely (>90%)? Did they actually come up with multiple consistent models and determine it was true for >90% of them? Or did they just pull a stat from nowhere? Remember the statement: Lies, damn lies and statistics.

YES! They did come up with multiple models, thousands of them in fact.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.

Except for that likely (which may mean >66%, but it doesn't quite fit in that sentence) there's no numbers or quantitative statements. Usually not a good thing for a scientist to do.

This is the SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS! Policy makers, IE. politicians, don't care about the nitty gritty details, they just want quick facts with which to make policy decisions on. If you want to comment on any of this, read the entire IPCC report, which contains all the facts, figures, proofs, climate models, etc. and then make your case.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

So, there's a less than 5% chance we don't even have an impact? Seeing as we've already agreed there is an impact, this would be a moot point to bother with.

Again, summary for policy makers. Harper is a policy maker. He ardently believes that that less than 5% is reality. This is an attempt to say to people like him "no, it's not!"

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in).

I like this one. Mainly because they don't include any of the qualifiers that you included below. This shows, at least to me, that they aren't confident enough in their model to put a qualifier on this other than "could", which I assume means >0%. This shows that they have doubt as to what the consequences will be, which I approve of. However, that they STILL threw out a stat I don't approve of.

I don't see "could" anywhere here. I see probably, and probably means range, estimation.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.

We've already admitted the world is getting warmer, even if we weren't here. Part of global warming, natural or not, is "more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfalls". Nothing is really being said with this stat, as it could be >99% (just in case the trend mystically reverses itself I don't want to say that could NEVER happen).

Again, summary for policy makers. Many policy makers deny this.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

These are also natural results of global warming, albeit I don't know what constitutes "extreme" high tides.

Again, policy makers...

THrag2K wrote:

Note: For both of the preceding statements, they don't say how much of an increase, even relatively speaking, but just that there will be one. Thusly, if the trend is largely natural and these things do increase it will be sported as proof of the statements, even if it isn't proof of the underlying meaning.

Again, the debate has to do with relative acceleration of these trends. Yes, the globe goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Yes, we are likely on the up tick of one of those warming trends. What is being debated is whether or not humans are aggravating that natural cycle, or just along for the ride. My argument, and the consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that humans ARE making things worse. Ie. we are accelerating climate change at never before recorded speeds. If you want facts, figures, models, empirical data, consult the FULL report, don't nitpick me for putting forward a summary (which by the way, I stated multiple times in my post that it was a SUMMARY)

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

Ah, CO2 sticks around as natural dissipation is really slow. I can back that, but this is just saying "If we're right, then the effects will be around for a while". It still hinges on that if.

Again, billions (if not many many more) of data points, thousands of studies, hundreds of esteemed scientists who've devoted their lives to the study and research of this topic. True, we can never be 100%, but we're 99% sure that this is happening, its because of us, and we need to stop it.

So "IF" this is the case, then we need to mitigate our emissions now because it is a compounding problem. The sooner we slow down, the less the long run mitigation will be, the less the long run COSTS will be.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years

Hey, look, a fact. And an obvious one at that.

Again, for those nay-sayers and deniers.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

note the lack of mention of water vapour, which while also a green house gas is not identified anywhere in the IPCC reports as either rising due to anthropogenic causes, or accelerating in concentration that alarm climate scientists]

Though not rising GLOBALLY, it is rising in specific locales. This contributes to the warming in those areas, which then dissipates heat further to surrounding areas as well. It's not listed because it's not a global effect.

What? Shoe me an article, a report, hell any sort of anecdotal evidence of this. You're pulling this crap out of thin air!

THrag2K wrote:

So there we have it. I see a lot of words that, in the end, say nothing. Well, except for the few obvious conclusions.

One last time, maybe repetition will get you to understand. SUMMARY. THIS IS A SUMMARY! NOT THE FULL REPORT! If you're going to argue against it (which again, sheer lunacy) argue against the full report! If you're having problems finding it, here is a link http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html.

As an aside, I can't believe you WOULD argue any of those points... that's like saying on a sunny day, in front of 500 meteorologists, it's raining right now!

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

As the above states with at least a 90% likelihood, we're already in this.

There's a 90% chance we're in something. But you keep assuming it's a disaster, when even the above "data" (I say this because I assume it's drawn from some form of data, but isn't data itself) doesn't support this assumption.

The data DOES support this. It's saying in black and white letters on your computer screen right now "Tides will increase, There'll be more cyclones, draughts, and extreme weather, Temperatures will go up between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees". Again, not my opinion, the CONSENSUS of hundreds of people WHO'S ONLY JOB IT IS to study the climate. People who are VASTLY, VASTLY, VASTLY more educated on this debate than you or I ever will be.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

Those points you mentioned are not a cohesive plan... just like the Conservatives "climate strategy".

They're additions to a plan. Take the current one, but add those to it. It takes the plan, makes it better. I'm all for getting the corporations to clean up their act, but as is it wouldn't do anything as they can simply pass on the entire cost to the consumer. Emissions would lower in this case, but not nearly as much as if there were a real incentive for the companies to come up or at least implement better technology. My addition would give them this incentive as they would have to eat the cost themselves.

Okay, first you did not ever say that those "points" were in addition to the Green Shift. And even if you did they would essentially gut the purpose of it. The whole point is to apply a cost to a negative externality.

What is a negative externality?

Well, in Economics, an externality is a consequence or product of a process. A negative externality is one that is undesired and leads to a cost for abatement or containment.

Within our economic system, a negative externality is the shifting of the cost of abating that negative product away from your own books. If a company pollutes, they don't have to deal with the costs if it goes up the smoke stack. But it doesn't mean that those costs go away. Other people have to deal with them, AKA Society.

It means needing to build levies and dikes to hold back ever increasing and ever larger floods. It means increased medicare costs from Asthma.

So applying a costs to a negative externality is forcing individuals to pay for the cost of their process while in turn reducing taking away the cost from the actors within the overall system that did not choose to deal with the externality, but had it thrust upon them.

THrag2K wrote:

Quote:

They are a series of stop-gap measures meant to address short term goals and silence the critics.

Odd, because I thought that was the point. You have someone who's critical of a plan, they bring up concerns (consumers are the ones who will pay). A measure is introduced to "stop-gap" that (companies can't pass on the cost of the tax to the consumer) and the concerns are addressed and the person is no longer critical. The plan still goes on as before, except for that one small development that will make it better.

No. A stop gap measure is a measure used to stymie discussion by appearing to take action when in fact you are not.

Your concern, consumers will pay more, is moot anyways because inflation does that for us. You'll always pay more, thats a fact of life! With this plan, you MAY pay a little more, but it all depends on your choices. Instead of driving to the supermarket across town to get a carton of milk, walk to the corner store. Or take the bus. Or if you have to drive, why drive that V8 monstrosity when a V6 or a four cylinder will do?

It's called choices, and just because you want to live in ignorance and not have to make them, doesn't mean you have a right to force that unto others. The consequences of your actions affect others, whether you like it or not. It's time that you take responsibility for those actions, because until now you've been getting a free ride (literally, $0 cost for externalizing negative by-products of your choices).

THrag2K wrote:

Hence why I'm proposing additions to the LIBERAL plan that would be electable. That way SOMETHING is put into effect.

You're proposing gutting the Liberals plan... "Lets take the green shift, take the shift out, throw out the green, that looks right!" What's left then?

Fundamentally, if you want to add a cost to a negative externality, it'll increase costs in the short term relative to the status quo! That's being offset by lowering income taxes, so that peoples ability to absorb those costs are increased. On the whole, it equals out.

THrag2K wrote:

To a degree? Some places it will be fully passed on, I can guarantee that.

Yes, I can guarantee that in some places it will fully be passed on too. But not all! Besides that, you're adding a cost at the top of the economic hierarchy (the companies) and adding more funds at the bottom (the consumer) in the form of income tax cuts. Income tax is a payroll tax for most people, which means they will see their take home pay increase on every pay cheque!

THrag2K wrote:

Here's the thing though. If prices are passed on directly to the consumer, and in some places it will be, then if the consumer responds by using less then the output and input would decrease proportionately. Thus, the efficiency would remain the same at best.

Yes and no. For many things, the unit in which consumers purchase the good is set. You can't buy half a car. You can buy a car with a smaller engine, but you're still buying 1 car. Therefore, efficiency of your car goes up, you're travelling the same number of KM but your fuel usage goes down. Lets look at home heating as well. Unless you move, you'll continue to use the same amount of home heating fuel, costs go up. So you can either move or insulate your home to reduce costs. So for some products, like fossil fuels, their usage levels in Canada will decline. But on the world market, that means we can sell more of it to others and earn more money, our overall efficiency goes up, and as a result or ability to export goes up.

THrag2K wrote:

Which would result in a proportionate decrease in both input and output at best, resulting in, at best, a net of zero change.

Our production of oil from the oil sands is at 100% capacity, and we're adding capacity every day. If Canada uses less of that oil, we can sell more of it abroad and make money.

THrag2K wrote:

This is more a benefit to the environment than to the economy. If there were no tax on said negative externalities (and there likely won't unless the libs change the plan enough to make it electable) then the only cost associated with them is the cost of transporting the waste. On the whole scale this is a small cost, as most of the waste transports itself. It would improve the economy, but only slightly.

Again, a negative externality doesn't mean the costs associated with it disappear. It just means its being shifted to another actor within the economic system without their intention or knowledge. If smog producing emissions get reduced, there'll be less smog related deaths. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=caa757e7-9e7b-4136-bb76-158101c1a143&k=56376 Smog will kill 6,000 people in Ontario alone this year. That's $230 million dollars (6,000 x GDP per Capita of $38,400) of potential economic production wasted from this free negative externality. Not to mention the secondary economic consequences of reduces productivity from grieving family members and needing time off to care for them. And that is just one example. Costs associated with moving people from low lying regions that will be affected by rising tides could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Increased sever weather phenomenon costs billions of dollars in rebuilding. Energy costs for keeping your home cool in the summer when the world heats up more. Just because most of those costs are not observed directly by you doesn't mean you don't pay for them. Your tax dollars go to "relief" of tornado victims. Your insurance rates are rising from payments due to hail damage. Your tax dollars go toward medical treatment of people with asthma

THrag2K wrote:

Actually, we wouldn't have a rational argument for the next hundred years or so. They're rebuttal for why they shouldn't is because we had a free ride since the Industrial Revolution. That was a long time ago, and if they really wanted to they could keep trotting out that excuse for a long time. If we had signed that would just mean our argument would become rational in 2244 instead of 2264. I gotta say, if the problem is as big as claimed, then by then humanity is hooped anyway. Hell, humanity could be hooped by then for many various reasons.

NO! Because 1. We would have developed a political frame work to make those changes palatable in their countries, 2. we would have developed technologies to make it cheaper for them to change, 3. we would be leading by example.

Look at China. What is their speciality. They take pre-exisiting processes, and expand it on a massive scale. Whereas we can build a hundred widgets for a thousand dollars, they can build one thousand. They don't develop the widget, they just make it more efficiently than we can.

Same goes here, if we develop a more efficient wind mill, they can build that very same windmill fore lower cost then us.

So, by leading by example, we would be LEADING them to a better system.

THrag2K wrote:

Who said give up? I certainly didn't. I'm not saying trash the current plan, I'm saying adjust it to make it better. The only way we can be a leader in this is if we can actually institute a plan that will work. That won't happen with the current plan as it won't be instituted as is, plain and simple.

YOU ARE SAYING GIVE UP!! "Lets wait and see" "maybe in 5, 10, 20 years". Being resistant to change is a bad trait to have. And besides that, you're not proposing a different plan, you're opposing the currently proposed plan. Notice the difference. Propose vs. Oppose. You, nor the Conservatives, haven't actually proposed anything that will advance the discussion. It's been rhetoric and bigoted indifference of others! That's it, that's all!

THrag2K wrote:

As for the lecture about "the future", get off your high horse. Everyone knows the proposed costs to the future, so spewing that out isn't going to change a thing. In fact, all your doing is either "preaching to the choir" or "pissing everyone else off". That everyone else either doesn't care about the future, or are just more concerned with the present. Also, that everyone else is the majority, so you're going to have to get to them in a better way.

My "lecture" about the future is the present, and is reality. As you stated "CO2 sticks around as natural dissipation is really slow", therefore the consequences of our actions today will affect the FUTURE for at least 100 years, if not more! And hey, if its pissing you off, its probably because you're unwilling to accept that your actions have consequences past your own life. But hey, you hear that... knock knock knock, thats reality at the door there. Your actions HAVE consequences beyond just you, beyond your town, beyond your life, and to bury your head in the sand and pretend its not so will not make reality go away.

So the question is, what're you going to do about it? If your answer is "F**k the future generations, I want to live for me, for today, the future be damned" fine, although its an answer I diametrically oppose, it is a viable and acceptable answer.

THrag2K wrote:

The short term inconvenience is what will make the plan not instituted as it will result in the people proposing it not being elected.

Why? Because the people opposing the people who are proposing this plan are using short sighted tactics that play to emotion rather than reason. Well, I happen to have more faith in the People of Canada than you, and besides that the polls are on my side. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080708/climate_poll_080708/20080708?hub=Canada

THrag2K wrote:

Also, I agree with your "let's reduce our costs" deal, but mainly because I'm a cheap bastard. However, a rising cost to me won't force me to reduce further, it'll just make me more upset that I'm suddenly having to pay more.

There we go, a sound argument at last. I can sympathize, I too am a cheap bastard! But, you're take home pay will increase as a result of income tax cuts (unless you're in the top income bracket, in which case why are you a cheap bastard, if I had that kind of money I'd be spending it!) and you can begin to pursue ways of lowering your costs, and as a result the impact that increases energy costs would have on you.

Even little, very inexpensive things can lower your monthly costs. Get two empty water bottles, fill them with water, tie a string to them, and put them in your toilet bowl. The string is so that it keeps them from going down the hole when you flush. There you go, 1 litre of water per flush saved. If you want to go further, buy a low flow toilet.

Get a match, and with all your doors and windows closed, use the smoke when you blow it out to see if you have any little holes that could be costing your money in increased heating and cooling costs.

Plan out shopping trips so you don't need to go twice.

I could go on. The point is, a series of very small changes in behaviour can result in some very big savings to your pocket book. For me, that money I save means I can go out for drinks with my buddies once more in a month.

THrag2K wrote:

THrag2K wrote:

Then why are you trotting out the support plan if you know it won't effectively solve the problem it was meant to fix?

Quote:

I know it will solve the problems it is meant to fix

Then why did you say:

Quote:

I'm sure the support will never be enough.

That doesn't solve, it just assuages the problem.

Quote:

my point was that the other two parties will inevitably say it won't

Unfortunately you made that point after the above statement. Though the point is true, it still doesn't retract the above statement.

Does it need to? I've clarified the statement, enough said!

THrag2K wrote:

Sure, unexpected costs will occur, but that's why they're unexpected. However, if you make sure you have an efficient model, or the most available to you, to begin with (which the gun registry and this current proposal don't necessarily have) then the total cost will be lower as you've minimized the expected costs.

I, and all the economists around the world that support applying a cost to negative externalities, agree that the overall savings that will occur, in reduced healthcare expenditures, reduced importation of fossil fuels, reduced use of energy, and other reductions, far outweigh the stated and possible unstated costs associated with this plan.

THrag2K wrote:

And again, I said nothing about scrapping, but about adjusting. As for your "would you shut down these programs?", I wouldn't shut them down as we've already instituted them and have to deal with those mistakes as best we can. However, I'd like to avoid further mistakes by at least making sure the current plan has minimized the expected costs.

The expected costs to the consumer are stated, and they will be mitigated by income tax reductions. Yes, in the short term inflation will likely increase as prices go up, but that will be mitigated by increased purchasing power from greater take home pay, resulting in either a nullification of those price increases or a minimal overall increase in relative prices.

Funds ARE being set aside to assist companies to mitigate increased cost in the form of increased R&D grants as well as some corporate tax cuts.

Yes, one might be able to entertain a discussion that there should be no corporate tax cuts, or that there should be more, I don't really know or care, but in the end, the plan includes a pledge, verifiable by the Auditor General, that every penny generated will be invested into lower other taxes.

THrag2K wrote:

Sure, the rich won't be able to afford one more ivory backscratcher. But as wages go up to balance costs, costs will then go up to balance wages. Though "money is meaningless" to an economist, to joe blow (and his manager) it means a lot. This is how economic depressions are born, by rapid inflation of wages and prices which leads to a devaluation of the dollar. Could the current plan lead to that? I'd say that, if left unchecked with the current "solutions" then it's possible.

We are currently in an economic crisis born out of energy costs that have increased at a rate that cannot be mitigated by our current economic system. We want to lower lower inflation by increasing lending rates, but can't do that because we need to stimulate the economy. If we stimulate the economy, inflation sky rockets, and we need to raise interest rates. We're stuck in a catch-22 situation. The only way to fix that is to reduce our dependency on energy.

YES, it won't be a quick fix, YES it will lead to some short term pain, but we'll be better off for it in the end!

THrag2K wrote:

*Sigh* You still don't get it. I am thinking the big picture in terms of this country. I don't want the prices increasing nation wide, plain and simple. You call me a bigot because this price increase would affect Alberta more, but I use the example of Alberta to show that it will affect us more disproportionately. As to whether it will affect the rest of the world, I'll direct you to all my previous arguments about how much effect we have on global warming and the uncertainty of the cost on the rest of the world.

It will affect the world. Other countries are adopting similar policies, ie. applying a cost to negative externalities. Whether its cap and trade, or a set fee, the impact is the same, you're introducing a cost on pollution, therefore necessitating its minimization.

As for the price increases, again, there is a built in mechanism to solve that, people will get more money. They will see their monthly take home pay increase, which they can then plow into all those wildly increasing costs. But, again, that won't be. Costs won't simply increase at the flip of a switch. Companies will have time to adjust to the new reality they will undoubtedly see. They will preempt the need to increase prices by reducing what they will see as a soon to be increasing cost. As well, companies DO have the ability to absorb some costs, as well as to change their suppliers, and change their production processes. Look at airlines, they're already implementing changes to reduce costs associated with increasing oil prices. Some of them are okay (most airlines are flying a few minutes slower to save on fuel) some of them less so (US Airways (I think) is no longer providing movies on trans-continental flights because the audio visual systems weigh about 500 pounds), but you're already seeing a lot of the those mitigating actions taking place today in the face of increased oil prices.

However, the cost-benefit of performing even more actions (like buying new planes and parking old ones) does not become appealing unless those costs are further increased. This would do that. Again, short term pain for long term gain!

THrag2K wrote:

This is incorrect sir. It won't be felt equally. You yourself stated that Ontario has a quasi-free market in terms of energy and heat. Thusly, in order to maintain competitiveness companies won't pass on the entire cost to consumers (unless they have a grand conspiracy of price fixing, but that in and of itself is another problem).

However, here in Alberta, we have 1 provider of energy, and 1 provider of heat. More than that, they own and control all the lines of provisions as well. Thus, they can pass on the price in it's entirety with no fear of losses to competitors.

Thusly, our prices will rise moreso than Ontario. I'm not saying Ontario is out to "steal our money" but rather that the consequences of the current plan, without some form of regulation that prevents companies from passing on the entire cost to the consumer, is greater in Alberta as a result of the current system.

A valid argument. In the big scheme of things, a relatively easy legislative quick fix. There are enough varying market models that exist across Canada and the world that Alberta could cherry-pick any of them and have a full fledged market system with 2 years. And I can tell you this much, between first their being an election, writing a thrown speech and legislative agenda, passing then subsequently implementing, the Green Shift won't be in place for 3 or 4 at the least. And that's assuming a majority government!

Aside from that, Alberta could also take on a regulating role with regard to their heating and energy market. As well, individual actors can mitigate their potential cost increases by reducing their dependency of that energy, say by buying a new furnace, making sure their house is insulated properly, using CFL or LED lights.

THrag2K wrote:

And there's the mistaken assumption. The current plan is to have tax come to the government and some of it to be passed back down to the bottom. However, that tax doesn't care where it comes from, but rather that it does. I'm saying the plan needs something that ensures the top (which is primarily the corporations in charge of the heat/power) pays for it instead of passing it down carte blanche to the middle and lower. As it stands the plan only truly taxes the middle and lower, and gives some of that back to the lower, at least in Alberta. In Ontario, due to it being more of a free-market setting, this probably won't happen as much as companies will be willing to eat portions of the cost themselves to ensure they don't lose consumers to their competition.

The plan is to have tax come to the government and all of it passed back. Aside from that, where the tax comes from is clear. Not corporations, but heavy users of energy. If you don't want to be taxed as much, reduce your energy usage, plain and simple.

Those items wherein the cost of increased energy use will result in increased prices are ones that exist with a free and open market. Alberta may have one provider of energy, but you must have more than one brand of bread and butter.

You have one provider of energy, reduce your need for energy and you reduce your costs. Costs rise in the production of corn-flakes and it gets passed down to the consumer, switch brands of corn-flakes. The market is there for you to make choices with, whether it be the amount of energy you use directly or the amount of energy used to produce the things you use, indirectly, you still have the choice!

THrag2K wrote:

In conclusion, you continuously mistake me saying "we need to adjust the plan" as "scrap it", and that is really breaking down any argument. Further, though your arguments are strong, they address the concerns of a Kool-Aid drinking Conservative. I already told you that I'm not one of them, and told you my concerns (better outlined in this post) which don't use the same ideas for concern as the Conservatives. Thus, all your arguments against the Conservative position are misdirected and don't address my concerns.

As for the Global Warming stuff, I propose we both stop wasting our breath (or, in this case, neuro-electric impulses) trying to convince each other of anything. It's clear you're firmly in the "it's happening and it's bad" camp, and I'm in the "it's happening, but is it bad?" camp. We've seen the same data and drew different conclusions from it. Any further quoting of the data would be a practice in futility, and a waste of our resources (something I know you're against, ).[/quote]

After getting down to here, I'm beginning to understand your argument more, and while I'm tempted to review all my previous rebuttals above, the lazy bastard in me says "screw it, I hope THrag2K reads from bottom up." I'm willing to agree on your final statement and concentrate on discussing primarily the economic implications of the plan rather than the environmental. BUT, it must be noted, part of the long term benefits realized by this plan are as a result of its implications on the environment. As I mentioned before, inaction now means increased costs later, sadly its not an arithmetic scale either (1 year more now means 1 year more suffering and increased costs later), climate scientists agree its likely more of an exponential scale (1 year more inaction now will lead to many more years of suffering and increased costs later), which is why I am of the opinion that despite its possibly imperfections it's better to begin to act now that to take a wait and see approach.

[THrag2K]

commonsense wrote:

After getting down to here, I'm beginning to understand your argument more, and while I'm tempted to review all my previous rebuttals above, the lazy bastard in me says "screw it, I hope THrag2K reads from bottom up." I'm willing to agree on your final statement and concentrate on discussing primarily the economic implications of the plan rather than the environmental.

You're lucky in that I skipped right to the end to see if you actually read my last bit. Unfortunately, as you said you were far too lazy to hit the delete key. Now the pedant in me has some things to say.

Quote:

Okay, first off... this isn't something you can "break down".

Actually, it is. Simply, you separate the facts and address them one by one. Thus, the facts have been broken down, as opposed to addressing them as a whole. Try to read for other contextual possibilities before assuming your first choice was correct.

Quote:

bigoted

You might want to check the definition of that word before you throw it out there. If I were bigoted I would reject it out of hand simply because it differs from my opinion. Unfortunately for you choice of words, I don't just reject it out of hand. I reject it as an absolute, and that the data is still inconclusive.

Quote:

It's saying plenty! There are still a lot of people, like George W. Bush and Stephen Harper who are on record as denying that global warming even exists.

Actually, it's not. Anyone with half a brain would realize global warming exists based entirely on purely anecdotal evidence. Those who state otherwise are either woefully ignorant or are pursuing their own agenda. Either case, they probably won't be reading anything the IPCC publishes.

Quote:

This is the SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS!

Well then, that was your mistake. Here I am, clamoring for hard proof, and you go ahead and give me summaries for policy makers.

Quote:

I don't see "could" anywhere here.

Then you might want to read it again. It's there. Third word in fact.

Quote:

If you want facts, figures, models, empirical data, consult the FULL report, don't nitpick me for putting forward a summary (which by the way, I stated multiple times in my post that it was a SUMMARY)

If you don't want me nitpicking your summaries, then don't provide a summary in response to me questioning data. If all you were going to do was quote me a summary, then I was just going to treat it like the data I was asking for in an effort to aggravate you until you actually provide it or stop pretending like that summary did jack squat. I guess I got the last bit, so mission accomplished.

Quote:

What? Shoe me an article, a report, hell any sort of anecdotal evidence of this. You're pulling this crap out of thin air!

I'll actually refer you to the wiki article on greenhouse gas. Little section titled "role of water vapor". Second sentence "but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales" shows that it affects local areas (*gasp* first part of my statement). It then goes on to state that water vapor acts to amplify the greenhouse effect of other gases, and it's only logical to state that increased water vapor in a local area would further amplify the greenhouse effect on that area. Then, using basic science, we find that heat transfers from a warm area to a relatively cooler area. Thus, the increased greenhouse effect in that small area would dissipate to the entire world, contributing to the global effect. Amazing that, eh?

Quote:

As an aside, I can't believe you WOULD argue any of those points... that's like saying on a sunny day, in front of 500 meteorologists, it's raining right now!

*shakes head* Look closely again. I argued that none of those points were all that hard data. The only one I actually contested was the possible outcomes.

Also, again with the sensationalized metaphors? You have a bad habit of these, and maybe you should try to avoid making metaphors in the future. If your metaphor was apt that would be akin to me denying global warming. You'd have to be an idiot the believe that, seeing as I've repeatedly said quite the opposite. And frankly, I don't think your an idiot, just a person who's not that good at making metaphors.

Here's a better metaphor: I'm in a star-lit field in the middle of a city. It's clearly light enough for me to see, but as to how much of that clarity is provided by the natural starlight and how much is provided by the man made streetlights in the distance. You can probably guess where this is going, right?

Quote:

The data DOES support this. It's saying in black and white letters on your computer screen right now"Tides will increase, There'll be more cyclones, draughts, and extreme weather,

Before you go lecturing people on reading what's right on their screen, black and white, give it a try first, eh? Before this statement even came up I explicitly stated that "more cyclones, droughts and extreme weather" are a natural result of global warming.

Now, we again have a problem of contextualizing. It's pretty easy to assume that an increase in natural disasters is "disastrous" in it's own way, but seeing as I keep talking about how there's no data to prove it's disastrous yet then it should be clear that I don't mean that small-scale disastrous. Unless of course you assume I'm an idiot, but why the hell would you be responding in that case?

No, the disastrous I mean is something we can't turn around. Something we won't survive, as a culture and as a planet. I'm talking more along the scales of Venus, wherein a runaway greenhouse effect turned the planet into a hellish environment. That's the context of disaster I mean, and it should be clear that the data in no way supports that we are anywheres close to that.

Quote:

Okay, first you did not ever say that those "points" were in addition to the Green Shift.

Ever? That's a handy absolute you tossed out there. You sure you want to use it though? How about we just quote the post that started all this:

THrag2K wrote:

My suggestion would be to alter the bill such that
a) it gives the companies a window to make necessary changes and
b) somehow prevents the companies from simply passing on the cost to the consumer.

Altering something such that it has something in it that wasn't present before. That sure sounds like addition to me, but mayhaps you have another context of addition I'm unaware of. Sure, the word addition and addendum didn't come up (or at least I can't find it, even though I though I did use those words) until the post prior to this one, but it should be obvious that the idea was addition none-the-less.

Quote:

No. A stop gap measure is a measure used to stymie discussion by appearing to take action when in fact you are not.

Funny, because I thought in this case discussion was what was preventing action. I figured doing something to stymie said discussion instead of squandering time and resources into said discussion would be action in and of itself, but I guess mindlessly talking and watching as nothing gets done is plenty of action for you.

Quote:

Instead of driving to the supermarket across town to get a carton of milk, walk to the corner store.

Funny...I already do that. Except, I walk to the supermarket across town because the milk is cheaper there.

Quote:

It's called choices, and just because you want to live in ignorance and not have to make them, doesn't mean you have a right to force that unto others.

First, what makes you think I haven't made these "choices" you speak of? I don't drive, at all, and when I need to get somewhere fast or far I take mass transit. I minimize my impact on the environment simply because it costs me less to do so. I've been making these choices you speak of, but for entirely different purposes than you, and yet I'm ignorant. Also, what gives someone else the right to suddenly inflate my budget to protect the environment when I have a smaller impact than them? And what gives them the right to inflate peoples budgets who can't afford that inflation?

Quote:

You're proposing gutting the Liberals plan... "Lets take the green shift, take the shift out, throw out the green, that looks right!" What's left then?

It's called a start. How many people would say "I'm totally willing to pay out the ass now so we can have a better future"? I'm telling you, most of humanity is a selfish group focused in the here and now. These are the greedy lot who will be voting, and if the Liberals don't get in because the Conservatives were able to spin this to death then we won't even have a start. At least this way it's not asking people to vote for you and break out the check book in almost the same motion.

Quote:

And besides that, you're not proposing a different plan, you're opposing the currently proposed plan. Notice the difference. Propose vs. Oppose.

Dismiss my propositions all you please. This doesn't negate the fact that they are propositions designed to end the discussion and start action. You've already shown enough problems with context (and definitions), so I shant bother with this further.

As for all your "suggestions" for what I can do to minimize my costs and impact...would it bother you greatly if I were to tell you I already do all that? It should be obvious that I do and have, seeing as I've stated I'm a cheap bastard. But of course, you acknowledged that...and went on pretending I'm stupid enough to not already be doing that. I've done all the small things that either came to mind or that I was told about, and I've even done some big things that I'm sure others would balk at (such as the lack of driving coupled with my "walking distance" is about 10K). But hey, you've already shown a propensity to assume I'm one of those gas-guzzling power-hogging conservatives, so should I really be surprised that you assumed I wasn't doing all that small stuff you described?

Quote:

Why? Because the people opposing the people who are proposing this plan are using short sighted tactics that play to emotion rather than reason.

Most people vote out of emotion because they couldn't bother to educate themselves enough to do reason. That's why the Republican spin machine works so damn well in the States, and though the Canadian people may be better than that, I wouldn't expect it to be much better. Why did the Liberals lose power? Was it a fundamental shift in ideals throughout Canada that affected reasoned decisions, or was it an emotional response to repeated scandal?

As for the polls, that just shows people would be willing to support an aggressive plan. This does not state WHAT plan they had in mind of supporting, but rather that they would support one. This is in no way hard proof of support for a plan that would aggressively change consumer habits, as it could also cover support for an aggressive nuclear expansion plan, or an aggressive plan to regulate consumption devices (like banning or heavily taxing inefficient technology, mandating low-flow toilets, etc) or various other "aggressive" policies. As such, this poll isn't nearly as clear as you probably believe it to be.

Quote:

The plan is to have tax come to the government and all of it passed back.

And here comes me being a pure pedant: All? Are you sure the bureaucracy won't get their hands on it somehow? Do you honestly believe that even with a "guarantee" from the government that it would be that simple?

Quote:

The market is there for you to make choices with, whether it be the amount of energy you use directly or the amount of energy used to produce the things you use, indirectly, you still have the choice!

And as I keep pointing out, I've already made the choices to go cheap. I price shop, and typically go for the best deal (unless of course my gluttony overpowers my greed and I just have to get something I know tastes better but is more expensive).

So where do I go from here if I (and others like me) don't want to be taxed more? What about all those people who do even more than me because they simply can't afford to do less under the current system?

How about the disabled and elderly who don't pay taxes but have to budget like this? The tax cuts won't help them one bit.

Note: I apologize for the 2-week delay. For some odd reason on my end the forum kept claiming I had the last post, so I wasn't even aware you had posted in response. Better late than never, right?

[Quantum_Wizard]

THrag2K wrote:

I'll actually refer you to the wiki article on greenhouse gas. Little section titled "role of water vapor". Second sentence "but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales" shows that it affects local areas (*gasp* first part of my statement). It then goes on to state that water vapor acts to amplify the greenhouse effect of other gases, and it's only logical to state that increased water vapor in a local area would further amplify the greenhouse effect on that area. Then, using basic science, we find that heat transfers from a warm area to a relatively cooler area. Thus, the increased greenhouse effect in that small area would dissipate to the entire world, contributing to the global effect. Amazing that, eh?

That water vapor doesn't long enough in the atmosphere to have any meaningful effect.

[THrag2K]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

That water vapor doesn't long enough in the atmosphere to have any meaningful effect.

On the global scale, no. The water vapor won't be spreading to other areas and enhancing the greenhouse effect as it's likely to just precipitate out. However, in the localized areas (such as the irrigation fields mentioned) the water is quickly replaced and the area maintains a relatively high humidity. Thus, the water vapor levels do stay around long enough to have an effect.

[Quantum_Wizard]

THrag2K, is there any credible source saying something like that?